Can the assassination of a dictator be justified?

Yes, it certainly can be justified, depending on how the dictator dictates. Does that make it morally right, though? I'd say not. But then, I don't believe in fighting wars, either.

I hate how people always think of dictators as evil tyrants.

If the dictator was killing people, its the same as giving a murderer the death penalty. An eye for an eye.

If he's a bad ruler and its a time of crisis (ie: attack from other nations), and the dictator can't properly protect the country, I think that might be neccessary for the survival of the entire country. Overthrow the dictator and put a new one up. However, in real life it would be way more complicated than just that.

But if the dictator is just annoying, then no. Thats just stupid.

Saddam Hussein = A dictator. Saddam Hussein =/= All dictators.

Ever hear about the Roman Empire? After the republic, a dictator came into power. He set the Roman Empire on its path to its golden age and then stepped down. Yeah. I just felt that had to be said, for the definitions sake. Dictators can be good too.

If he is your dictator or shall we say your ruler than I think its wrong. Its a matter of pride and respect. Assassinations in a country can lead to deep healing wounds. The JKF assassination was just depressing and blank. He wasn't a dictator but anyways...

but if you're some hired spy, i guess its not ur job to worry about the enemy. Killing is never good, and wrong to a big degree. But in realist terms, assassinating an enemy dictator makes you great.

if someone decided that assassinating a dictator is the correct course of action, then yes, in their minds it is justified.

It depends, a dictator is just someone who has absolute power.

The dictator in the Roman Empire did not come after the Republic, but rather during the Republic. The Office of the Dictator was set up in order to give someone emergency powers in order to quell rebellion, repel invasion, and so forth. The term lasted six months, in which case control returned to the republican government.

Not all dictators were benevolent in Rome. Julius Caesar and Lucius Cornelius Sulla are two prime examples. In fact, the Office of the Dictator was abolished after the fiasco with Caesar, who declared himself dictator for life.

(Incidentally, the idea of the Office of the Dictator, and the subsquequent abuse of power by some dictators, is mirrored in Star Wars Episodes II and III.)

wow i never made that connection. very interesting

I doubt that an assassination would be very effective against any brutal dictator, as the country would immediately be swept into unrest as different parties attempt to fill the power vacuum produced by the decapitation of that government. One man doesn't run the whole government, there is the administrator of pain, genital battery charger, naked pyramid builder, genital pointer-at-er, hood weaver, and all sorts of other agents in charge of brutal torture also run the government. It's not like they all go away if you cap one guy. If the CIA did assassinate someone, it probably wouldn't be for noble aims like capping Milosevic or something, they probably want to off someone like Hugo Chavez, who resists globalizers influence in his country, has rhetoric critical of the U.S., and incidentally is sitting on a huge pile of oil.

only when they take the lives of countless people.. i say bring him/her down. but can there be a "good-treating" dictator?

Murdur can never be justified. If we decide to murdur someone without due course of law then we are also sinking down to the level of the dictator. Not to mention killing one individual will do nothing. Today's dictators are not just one person but rather part of a group from which someone sharing the same autocratic values will emerge to take their place. And having his predasessor mudured will only give the successor reason to take further negative actions.

in some ways i agree but if the person had commited deeds in which another person is killed, they deserve the same sorta what i said in the death penalty

I disagree. Can a revolution that ensues violence and death not be justified for either side?

An excerpt from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (United States)



It is a human's right to overthrow an abusive government. Therefore if an assassination is necessary so be it.

It can be easily justified, especially if one life lost will prevent a lot more from being lost.

^ But it's against the law. Murder is against the law, even if you want to justify by saying you're saving many more lives than was lost. There are much better ways to "deal with a dictator". Especially in the new age, the president may completely be taken out of power. People would stop working for him, he'd be forcefully pushed out of authority and put into jail. Killing can not be justified.

It's very justified depends on the dictator's plan, announcement, and his attitute toward the people.



... How many people would like to slaughter Hitler, than he killed himself?

Because it's right.

He took disadvantage of people.

It’s best to get rid of the dictator because his existence is so great that it'll give more bad influence to other people.


We want democracy and republic.

Killing is bad, well in my opinion. Torture is better. Dying is easy, living is tough. Torture will make them want to die but they won't die. Maybe it's because I been hanging out with a lot of crazy people (try having your friend telling you ways she would kill you during history/S.S. class) but torture seems to meet measures of a dictator. I mean Hitler sent tons and tons of people to be tortured and be worked to death but some didn't die, they lived through it, through starving, through beatings, through mental scarring and etc.
"He killed himself in Berlin in 1945, when it became clear that the war was about to end in victory for the Allied Forces."-Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
Hitler killed himself because he was a baby, he didn't want to face the music. He didn't want to be put trough what he put others through. He took the coward's way out. Torture for a dictator, you're not killing him but getting revenge.

is the dictator cute, hot, and a woman?

if so, then absolutely not.

anyone else, then certainly.

it depends on what kind of torturing, are you talking about.

if you're talking about a real physical abuse like a mother did to her child, that's really harsh.

or ... a man who got trap in the deep and dense canyon.

i'm serious about this.

Um...If the dictator tortured and killed millions of people, wouldn't you want him to suffer for being so evil? Maybe you think it's going to be harsh on the evil dictator if we beat him up everyday or left him in a deep and dense canyon but after what he put the millons of people through, he deserves it. Don't you think so? Or it killing still an opinion?






Lmao. Honestly, there haven't been a lot of female dictators. How about an evil female dictator was cute and hot but killed millions and worked another million to death? It's not like anyone would want to sleep with someone who did evil things like that......RIGHT?

no matter who is that person, that person will deserve the same penalty.

she could be worse than hitler.





what if he escape ? we must kill 'em right away !

Anyways, i really dont mind what kind of penalty.

As long he's going to die.
Torture him, kill him, left him in the desert, drop him in a deep ocean, trap him in the maze, or whatever. I don’t mind.

doesn't matter if she's worse than hitler. if she's hot, she's not to be harmed.

you've got a problem with my double standard?

Was Hitler hot?

hitler is hot too.

but sadly, he went to hell.

you've got a problem with my double standard, sexist?

hitler wasn't hot.

but it's beside the point, because he wasn't a woman.

actually, he was a women.

one of his balls were not there.

that doesn't make him a woman.

and he wasn't hot.

(i'm waiting for someone to have the proper response so i may continue the debate)

Wow, aren't you the little sweetheart? Everyone is going to die, so we should make thier time on earth feel like hell. Well, that's my opinion about the matter on hand.




ROTFL. How do you know? Is that a FACT you can find in a textbook or something like that? Honestly, I don't want to get the wrong information, so that when I randomly blurt this out to my friends, I can say it's true.



He doesn't have to be women to be hot, have you ever heard of girls saying hot like as in hot guys. I sure some women out there, wanted to have his babIES. Didn't he have a wife/lover during the Nazi era (it's not an era but I hope you get what I mean)?

So anyway, TORTURE THE EVIL DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!


(Happy B-day America!!!!!!!!!)

yes. i'm a little sweetheart ;]

err...

my requirements for not killing a dictator were:

she's a woman

and she's hot.

too bad. there's no sense of fairness and democracy.

imagine if you were a straight girl.

The assasination of a dictator is moral if all of the following apply
1) Said dictator is clearly a tyrant
2) There is no lesser means to remove this person from office
3) It must be clear that the death of this person would make a change for the better
4) There must be replacement government lined up to take over

So for example, since we're on the topic of hitler, lets go with the Stauffenberg Conspiracy.

-Was Hitler clearly a tyrant? Yes
-Was there any other way to remove Hitler from office? No
-Would the death of hitler at that point in WWII have made a change for the better? Yes, b/c with Hitler overthrown, a new government could negotiate with the allies to save Germany from harsh punishment (which was the whole basis of the plan in the first place)
-Was there replacement government lined up? Yes, and they even had people to seize all the key positions in Berlin as soon as hitler was killed.

Now, did the plan work? No, and there were a bunch of reasons for that, but it was a morrally justified assasination attempt. Now I would like to point out, when I say moral, I mean this is the official teaching of the Catholic church on the subject, so it a my vary between different religions what is considered moral. Anyhow I would have to go with yes, the assasination of a dictator can be justified.

no assasination attempt is ever moral, no matter how immoral the target is.

you kill someone, you do it fairly. stooping to the level of assasination makes you no better than your enemy.

I have to agree with him ^ on this one. Blindsiding someone isn't something to cheer about.

who is someone? a hot girl? what?

How would you kill someone fairly? And you are correct that the morality of an assasination attempt can not be made b/c the target is immoral, one of those "it's for the greater good" excuses doesn't cut it. But, is it fair for a tyrranical dictator to send around secret service to arrest and kill all those whom he doesn't trust? You cant fairly kill a man who would kill you if you dont agree with him. But if the goal is not to bring yourself to power, if the goal is to make things right, if the goal is to free others from opression, and the only way to do that is to remove a man from power, which you cannot do without killing him, I dont see what the problem is. And would it be something to brag about? No. But for the extreem situations, it would be moral...... Ok, how about this? Would you consider killing another soldier in the course of battle immoral? No. Why? B/c he had a gun and would have killed you had he been given the chance. So how is killing a dictator who is killing innocent people, and would just as easily have you killed if he knew where to find you? He's got men with guns out as spies looking for you, you have an assasination plot with the works...... Seems like pretty fair odds, each side has a gun..... how is that any more moral than killing another soldier in battle if you were hiding in the trees and he was standing out in the field........

how do you know you're right, and he's wrong?

how do you know he's the evil one?

i'm sure he knows, and he's sure, that he is correct.

never relax your morals. assasination is an underhanded move- no matter how 'justified' it may be.

it's wrong. you don't do it. if i had a sniper rifle and somehow found myself in a tree behind adolf hitler, i would not shoot him.

why? because it's wrong. it's as justifyable as war.

just becuase that dictator is immoral doesn't mean you should be. assasinating anyone is never moral.

So you're saying that there's no such thing as a just war? This then would have to be a basis for the difference in our opinions, b/c if you do in fact believe that no such thing as a just war, than you could not see the assasination of a dictator as just. I, on the otherhand, believe a war is just when you are defending the innocent lives of another, when you are defending yourself, or when you are defending an ally. So, if you are at war with a tyrannical dictator, his death would obviously result in a change for the better, and a replacement government was set up to take his place, than I believe it would be ok. No, It would not be moral for a vigilante to go killing dictators just b/c he didn't agree with what they were doing, the person would clearly have to be tyrranical, ie. "Marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behaviour", such as persecuting races or religions.

war is just when you're the morally right party, correct?

in war, the morally right is the side that wins.

ergo, no war is just.

No, Not correct.

War being just is not based on the morality of the party, and the morally right side doesnt always win..... and just because someone believes themself to be morally right, doesn't mean that they are..... There are certain natural laws of morality that shouldn't be broken...... do jihading muslims belive themselves to be morally right? yes, but are they? no b/c they are aimlessly killing innocent people, and most muslims are fully aware that this is not moral.... So when the muslims took control of the Holy Land, did the morally right side win? No. Like I said before war is just 1) when you are defending innocent lives, 2) when you are defending youself against an unjust agressor, or 3) when you are defending an ally against an unjust agressor....... that is it..... it has nothing to do with whether you believe your actions as moral or not...... it has to be one of those 3 reasons..... Jihading muslims aren't defending anyone, they are killing people for not believing in the muslim religion, so it would be just to go to war against them. Germany was an unjust agressor in WW II, attacking the countries around it so that Hitler could gain more power. In the process he attacked our allies, which was reason enough for us to declare war on him, without mentioning the fact that he was murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians, and the fact that he was trying to get mexico to preemptively strike us so we wouldn't have the chance to enter the war to help our allies...... It had nothing to do with ht enAzi party just being an immoral party..... it had to do with their unjust agression and attacking of innocent life to feed their hunger for power

tell me one war in which the winning side was wrong.

I gave you an example.... Sulieman and the muslims who had declared Jiihad (Muslim Holy War) on Christendom (which is what pretty much all of eastern europe was at the time)... They didn't suceed in taking all of Christendom, but they did get a good portion, including the Holy Land. Even though they believed they were batteling the infidels, their own religion condemned what they were doing because they were slaughtering innocent people who didn't believe in the muslim religion. They ended up winning, the crusades never did any lasting damage (though I'm not saying the crusades were perfect and without their own problems, but the immoral action of certain men does not determine the morality of a war, the morals on which the war was is based does, and that was the defense of Christendom). So yeah, the muslims would be unjust agressors and though they won, would be considered wrong.

i don't call that a victory.

Whatever, you asked for an example where the winning side was morally wrong and I gave it to you.

morally wrong becuase you are on the "losing side", no?

no, morally wrong because their own religion considered it morally wrong. By their own beliefs, they were morally wrong, no matter how they thought they could justify it.

making you no better than your enemy is NOT the point, acid.

You know a man that killed your parents. You cried and suffered about losing someone valuable to you. You think, he doesnt derserve to died? a week later, he took the lives of your siblings. You are left alone. You cried even more. You began having mental breakdown, hallucinating, and mental issues. You have no family member to love. they're dead. they're not down on earth being part of your life anymore. On mother days, you didnt celebrate it becuase you had no mother. You see many children with their kids. and you wish you had parents aside of you.

again, a man killed all your friends. he slaughter and torture them. you saw everything, you had bad influences.


again, you're left all lone. no one cares about you. how does it feel to be humiliated?
you're lonely ... you still think he doesnt deserve to died for what he cause you, what he done to you, and the kind of condition you're in.

Did you ever had an experience of someone ... taking everything away from you? You were left with nothing. You dont think it's tough?


---------

if an alien ... arrive to Earth and started killing people. You dont think they dont deserve to died. You're letting them to .. take over the planet ? You're willing to died knowing that no one deserve to died?

How does it feel to be isolated, acid?

killing and assasinating are rather different, in my view.

while killing can be justified, assasination is a pretty unjustified form.

assasination usually ammounts to shooting someone in the back. which is unjustified.

For the most part it is unjustified.... but there are the few and far between circumstances where it can be justified..... unfortunately most assasinations happen without proper justification, or are justified by reasons like "the common good" which don't really justify it at all.......